IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae08/43972.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing the risk associated with willow and miscanthus relative to conventional agricultural systems

Author

Listed:
  • Clancy, Daragh
  • Breen, James P.
  • Butler, Anne Marie
  • Thorne, Fiona S.
  • Wallace, Michael T.

Abstract

The agronomic characteristics of willow and miscanthus make these crops highly susceptible to risk. This is particularly true in a country such as Ireland which has limited experience in the production of these crops. Issues such as soil and climate suitability have as yet to be resolved. The lengthy production lifespan of energy crops only serve to heighten the level of risk that affects key variables. The uncertainty surrounding the risk variables involved in producing willow and miscanthus, such as the annual yield level and the energy price, make it difficult to accurately calculate the returns of such a project. The returns from willow and miscanthus are compared with those of conventional agricultural enterprises using Stochastic Efficiency with Respect to a Function (SERF). A risk premium is calculated which farmers would need to be compensated with in order for them to be indifferent between their current enterprise and switching to biomass crop production. With the exception of spring barley, a risk premium is required if farmers are to be indifferent between their current enterprise and willow or miscanthus. The value of the risk premium required to entice farmers to switch to miscanthus production is significantly less than that required for willow. This suggests that a greater level of risk is associated with willow than with miscanthus.

Suggested Citation

  • Clancy, Daragh & Breen, James P. & Butler, Anne Marie & Thorne, Fiona S. & Wallace, Michael T., 2008. "Valuing the risk associated with willow and miscanthus relative to conventional agricultural systems," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43972, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:43972
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.43972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/43972/files/279.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.43972?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Brian Hardaker & James W. Richardson & Gudbrand Lien & Keith D. Schumann, 2004. "Stochastic efficiency analysis with risk aversion bounds: a simplified approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(2), pages 253-270, June.
    2. Lars Brink & Bruce McCarl, 1978. "The Tradeoff between Expected Return and Risk Among Cornbelt Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(2), pages 259-263.
    3. Lien, Gudbrand & Brian Hardaker, J. & Flaten, Ola, 2007. "Risk and economic sustainability of crop farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 541-552, May.
    4. Schurle, Bryan W. & Tierney, William I., Jr., 1990. "A Comparison of Risk Preference Measurements with Implications for Extension Programming," Staff Papers 118185, Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Clancy, Daragh & Breen, James P. & Butler, Anne Marie & Thorne, Fiona S., 2008. "The economic viability of biomass crops versus conventional agricultural systems and its potential impact on farm incomes in Ireland," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6485, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Lien, G. & Stordal, S. & Hardaker, J.B. & Asheim, L.J., 2007. "Risk aversion and optimal forest replanting: A stochastic efficiency study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1584-1592, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Witzel, Carl-Philipp & Finger, Robert, 2016. "Economic evaluation of Miscanthus production – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 681-696.
    2. Glithero, Neryssa J. & Wilson, Paul & Ramsden, Stephen J., 2013. "Prospects for arable farm uptake of Short Rotation Coppice willow and miscanthus in England," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 209-218.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eihab M. Fathelrahman & James C. Ascough II & Dana L. Hoag & Robert W. Malone & Philip Heilman & Lori J. Wiles & Ramesh S. Kanwar, 2011. "Continuum of Risk Analysis Methods to Assess Tillage System Sustainability at the Experimental Plot Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(7), pages 1-29, July.
    2. Eihab Fathelrahman & Aydin Basarir & Mohamed Gheblawi & Sherin Sherif & James Ascough, 2014. "Economic Risk and Efficiency Assessment of Fisheries in Abu-Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE): A Stochastic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Rohrig, Maren B.K. & Hardeweg, Bernd & Lentz, Wolfgang, 2018. "Efficient farming options for German apple growers under risk – a stochastic dominance approach," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(1).
    4. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Collender, Robert N. & Diao, Xinshen & Harrington, David H. & Hoppe, Robert A. & Korb, Penelope J. & Makki, Shiva S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Roberts, Michael J. & Roe, Terry L. , 2004. "Decoupled Payments In A Changing Policy Setting," Agricultural Economic Reports 33981, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Fan, Yubing & Himanshu, Sushil K. & Ale, Srinivasulu & DeLaune, Paul B. & Zhang, Tian & Park, Seong C. & Colaizzi, Paul D. & Evett, Steven R. & Baumhardt, R. Louis, 2022. "The synergy between water conservation and economic profitability of adopting alternative irrigation systems for cotton production in the Texas High Plains," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    6. Komarek, Adam M. & Bell, Lindsay W. & Whish, Jeremy P.M. & Robertson, Michael J. & Bellotti, William D., 2015. "Whole-farm economic, risk and resource-use trade-offs associated with integrating forages into crop–livestock systems in western China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 63-72.
    7. Hildebrandt, Patrick & Knoke, Thomas, 2011. "Investment decisions under uncertainty--A methodological review on forest science studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Lavorato, Mateus & Braga, Marcelo José, 2021. "On the Risk Efficiency of a Weather Index Insurance Product for the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315193, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Ishag, Kheiry Hassan M., 2015. "Resources Management and Risk Efficiency of Crop Rotation Systems in Sudan Gezira Scheme," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(4).
    10. Angelos Liontakis & Alexandra Sintori & Irene Tzouramani, 2021. "The Role of the Start-Up Aid for Young Farmers in the Adoption of Innovative Agricultural Activities: The Case of Aloe Vera," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, April.
    11. Rawlins, Richard B. & Bernardo, Daniel J., 1991. "Incorporating Uncertainty In The Analysis Of Optimal Beef-Forage Production Systems," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-13, July.
    12. Ascui, Francisco & Ball, Alex & Kahn, Lewis & Rowe, James, 2021. "Is operationalising natural capital risk assessment practicable?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Young, Douglas & Lin, William & Pope, Rulon & Robison, Lindon & Selley, Roger, 1979. "Risk Preferences Of Agricultual Producers:Their Measurement And Use," Risk Management in Agriculture: Behavioral, Managerial, and Policy Issues, January 25-26, 1979, San Francisco, California 271459, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    15. Adrien Hervouet & Marc Baudry, 2011. "Promoting innovation in the seed market and biodiversity: the role of IPRs and commercialization rules," Post-Print hal-02012239, HAL.
    16. Lyman, Nathaniel & Nalley, Lawton Lanier, 2013. "Stochastic Valuation of Hybrid Rice Technology in Arkansas," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142505, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Frikkie Maré & Bennie Grové & Johan Willemse, 2017. "Evaluating the long-term effectiveness of crop insurance products to provide cost effective and constant cover for maize producers under stochastic yields and prices," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 233-247, July.
    18. Hristovska, Tatjana & Watkins, K. Bradley & Anders, Merle M., 2012. "An Economic Risk Analysis of No-till Management for the Rice-Soybean Rotation System used in Arkansas," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119676, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Hammida, Mustapha & Eidman, Vernon R., 1991. "Livestock And Poultry Production Risk In The United States," Staff Papers 14016, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    20. Lien, Gudbrand, 2002. "Non-parametric estimation of decision makers' risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 75-83, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:43972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.